The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1887-11-24
DRIVE WELLS.

Aoads OFT an Obnoxious 0yotom
Of Extortlon..HoW otoon Over.
reached Himself.
There 10 rejoicing among the farmers OF
tho land, says tho Chicago Herald, at any
rate rejoicing among that portion OF the
agricultural community which has been
afflicted by the clamor OF ''drive.well''
fends. Nelson w. Green, the alleged In.
ventor OF the device, obtained his patent
Jan. IA, 1868, which was reissued
May 8. 1871. upon an amended
claim. Green was not slow in utilizing
his patent. He not only sold state. but
county and township rights at enormous
prices. which the purchasers OF these pat
ent rights could we'll afford to pay. because
the ruling price to be paid by fnrmer for
\ we'll sunk by the simple contrivancs
was $40 for well OF q diameter Of one
and quarter inches. There was a slid.
Ing, or rather rising. scale, governed by the
diameter and depth OF the well, the power
by which it was to be operated aud the
yield OF water per minute. until in some
instances price OF $500 was reached.
This amount exceeded by far the prics for
was tsn- fold that OF the ordinary etone
we'll. The price Of $40 for tho small.sized
we'll, while not much In itself, was by far
too much for tho service rem.
dered. No farmer would have paid it had
he not bsen forced to by combination OF
the patent-risht holders with the drivers.
Tho usual proceeding was that the ''driv-
era" would put in the we'll for q moderate
amount, and suhss4 uently the owner OF
the right would come along aud claim his
royalty. which he was in every case able
to collect. because he was backed up BY
numerous court decisions. All these
decisions arc now worthless. since
the supreme court OF the United
State has declared tho drive. y ell
patent invalid. This last decision was
reached on the ground that the invention
was used In public at Cortland by Others
than Green more than two years before the
application for patent was mads-a fact
which, under thslaw. is fatal to the patents
validity.
Had the patentee and the men to whom
he sold his rights been less graspiuE they
might have enjoyed a priucely income for
the time the patent lasted, but their ava.
rice caused the collapse. The magnitude Of
the case " i'll be understood when it is stat
ed that tho number OF drive wells in the
country reaches nearly million. about
sevsnty-Ave thousand being in the
State OF New York. The patentees in
Minnesota were worse than those OF any
other state. Quite recently they sent cir
friugers on the Green patent must pay $40
on a certain date. Those who did n 1T
comply with this cool demand were mott.
fed that they must pay $36.5O-$3O us
tho figure reached by trebliue the dam
ages, So court costs und SO cents for post.
age.
Former decisions. even ono included by
thu highest tribunal, proved to be in favor
OF the pa tentee. The patent has been tho
subject OF extensive litigation. It was first
held valid by Judge Benedict. in 1876, in
This decision was followed by nine Others.
rendered by Judges Dillon. Nelson. Ores.
ham, Blatchford, Nixon. Wheelsr, Nc.
Creary and Shipman. In two of the recent
cases-Andrews against Gone and Andrews
against Hovey-the patent was for the
first time hold invalid by judges Love,
Shiras and Nelson, OF the courts below, on
the Same grounds given by the United
States supreme court decision in the
course, overrides the one in the 10.
nous Eames. Andrews case OF
the October term, 1885. In che Eames
case 10 such testimony al in the Hovsy
and Cone cases was introduced. The fact
that the invention had bssn in public use.
with the knowledge and consent Of Green,
for m ore than two years prior to the FL
Ing OF his apple alton, rendered the patent
invalid. OF course. this decision non
suits all claims now pending in the courts
all over tho land against alleged infringers
OF the patent. The grasping disposition Of
the patentees and the con tinuous litigations
combined to make tho Green patent moro
odious than any other, but the task of
fighting it was tremendous. 1t was finally
accomplished by comparatively unknown
lawyer-Jed Lake of Independence. Iowa
who worked for a fee OF $50 day, and
worked perhaps two hundred days on the
case. At least 100000 has been spent
by both parties to the litigation just ended.
Those who have paid the exaoting royalty
have. OF course, no means OF recovery,
unless they can prove fraud or false repre-
tutions.